5 ms·

[flagged]

by Mezzie 3y ago

[flagged]

hayst4ck 3y ago
I think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you fail to see that might makes right. You can only win when those with liberal (in the social contract sense) beliefs have might, when liberals can credibly provide consequences for conservative attempts at dominance. I think you understand this on a subconscious level. Syndicalism (feel free to correct me, I am probably ignorant here) is an ideology that laborers should collectively bargain as a show of force or political violence. You don't unionize to reach "consensus." Syndicalism is consistent with the 2nd amendment. If you don't have a strong belief of the 2nd amendment and a good idea who the 2nd amendment is to be used against, you probably have a contradiction within your belief system. Anarchism is a politically immature ideology that is self-contradictory in the same way that communism and libertarianism are. Anarchism has no answer to a foreign invader or a genocidal next door neighbor. Anarchism is a contradictory ideology at a philosophical level. Anarchism denies institutions. Ukrainians did not get to decide whether they were at war. War was thrust upon them. Trans people don't get to decide whether they are at war with American conservatives or not. American conservatives have already declared that war. I don't take issue with anti-trans viewpoints being called degenerate. I don't take issue with calling federalist society court packing degenerate. I don't take issue with calling Clarence Thomas degenerate for saying "this is a lynching" in response to sexual abuse allegations against him. I don't take issue with the catholic polity protecting their priests from consequences being called degeneracy. I don't take issue with calling people who force rape victims into giving birth degenerates. Your post, on a philosophical level, amounts to the idea that in the game of prisoners dilemma, one should always cooperate. You shouldn't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. You shouldn't have rules for others, that you aren't bound to yourself. This is the paradox of tolerance. "If I do not cooperate, I cannot expect someone to cooperate with me." That's true and seems like quite the paradox. However the social contract of tolerance says "If someone does not cooperate with me, then I must not cooperate with them." It's important to understand that in the game of prisoners dilemma, if you let defection be a winning strategy, you will create more people with a strategy of defection. So if you have a rule of "violence is bad," but someone uses violence against you, is it a "rules for thee but not for me" situation to want to use violence back? If you have "rules for us," and someone violates them, how do you propose dealing with that? I would encourage you to play this game and mediate on the consequences of it for your political belief system: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ > These approaches suggest that whomever is making those calls has figured out the 'one true value system' and if we all just adhere to that system, it'll be sunshine and roses. I think you believe in speaking truth to power (which is respectable and important), but I think you are mis-applying it. > how much choice does someone born in Iran have about being Muslim? How much choice did a 1930s German have in terms of becoming a Nazi? Does it matter that much once the furnaces are loaded? Are you trying to argue that a Muslim decapitating a woman for getting raped is an innate quality? I think you believe in speaking truth to power, but I'm not sure you believe in the idea of objective truth. Without objective truth how can truth be spoken to power? I think you would find Timothy Snyder to be a very interesting speaker who you agree with on a values level, but will alter the way you think about things by questioning the frame through which you analyze things. His readings of "On Tyranny" is probably a good place to start (this is lesson 10: believe in truth): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0
- Mezzie 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Major props. I suspect I disagree with you politically on many subjects, but I'm pretty sure I could sit down and have a reasonable conversation with you. We would agree on some things, and disagree on more, but we'd hopefully be able to understand even when we disagreed.
    - Mezzie 3y ago
      I'm a weirdo: I like understanding people I disagree with. Probably because of my upbringing - political and ideological agreement was never necessary for care how I was raised. (I remember pretty vividly when we had a mock presidential election in 3rd grade and my parents each pitched different candidates to me lol). I find that usually there's a first principle or a blatantly subjective and unresolvable disagreement that's behind most political disagreements. For example, my father is way more pessimistic about human nature than I am and that shows up in a lot of his political views that I disagree with because he's starting from different first principles than I am. There's not an objective answer to 'are humans innately good or bad?' that I can point to in order to sway him. Where I've been successful in swaying others, it's been through understanding how their principles and values/value rankings differ from mine and pitching my solutions/beliefs in a way that works with others' principles rather than insults them. Besides that, it also helps make my own belief system more robust. If you know something that indicates that what I believe is false, I want to know. I want to grow as a person and refine my understanding of the world until my last breath, not stop at 18 because 'we've figured it out!' Which is more and more driving me out of spaces I used to enjoy: There's a pervasive pressure to continue acting and speaking in an adolescent fashion. A culture that tries to keep me from growing is not healthy, no matter what its ideologies are. I just like learning things and genuinely like talking to a bunch of different people. The more different from me, the better. I would love to talk to a member of the Taliban, for example. I'm not going to agree with anything, but damn that would be a fascinating conversation to have.

[flagged]

by Mezzie 3y ago

[flagged]

I think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you fail to see that might makes right. You can only win when those with liberal (in the social contract sense) beliefs have might, when liberals can credibly provide consequences for conservative attempts at dominance. I think you understand this on a subconscious level. Syndicalism (feel free to correct me, I am probably ignorant here) is an ideology that laborers should collectively bargain as a show of force or political violence. You don't unionize to reach "consensus." Syndicalism is consistent with the 2nd amendment. If you don't have a strong belief of the 2nd amendment and a good idea who the 2nd amendment is to be used against, you probably have a contradiction within your belief system. Anarchism is a politically immature ideology that is self-contradictory in the same way that communism and libertarianism are. Anarchism has no answer to a foreign invader or a genocidal next door neighbor. Anarchism is a contradictory ideology at a philosophical level. Anarchism denies institutions. Ukrainians did not get to decide whether they were at war. War was thrust upon them. Trans people don't get to decide whether they are at war with American conservatives or not. American conservatives have already declared that war. I don't take issue with anti-trans viewpoints being called degenerate. I don't take issue with calling federalist society court packing degenerate. I don't take issue with calling Clarence Thomas degenerate for saying "this is a lynching" in response to sexual abuse allegations against him. I don't take issue with the catholic polity protecting their priests from consequences being called degeneracy. I don't take issue with calling people who force rape victims into giving birth degenerates. Your post, on a philosophical level, amounts to the idea that in the game of prisoners dilemma, one should always cooperate. You shouldn't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. You shouldn't have rules for others, that you aren't bound to yourself. This is the paradox of tolerance. "If I do not cooperate, I cannot expect someone to cooperate with me." That's true and seems like quite the paradox. However the social contract of tolerance says "If someone does not cooperate with me, then I must not cooperate with them." It's important to understand that in the game of prisoners dilemma, if you let defection be a winning strategy, you will create more people with a strategy of defection. So if you have a rule of "violence is bad," but someone uses violence against you, is it a "rules for thee but not for me" situation to want to use violence back? If you have "rules for us," and someone violates them, how do you propose dealing with that? I would encourage you to play this game and mediate on the consequences of it for your political belief system: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ > These approaches suggest that whomever is making those calls has figured out the 'one true value system' and if we all just adhere to that system, it'll be sunshine and roses. I think you believe in speaking truth to power (which is respectable and important), but I think you are mis-applying it. > how much choice does someone born in Iran have about being Muslim? How much choice did a 1930s German have in terms of becoming a Nazi? Does it matter that much once the furnaces are loaded? Are you trying to argue that a Muslim decapitating a woman for getting raped is an innate quality? I think you believe in speaking truth to power, but I'm not sure you believe in the idea of objective truth. Without objective truth how can truth be spoken to power? I think you would find Timothy Snyder to be a very interesting speaker who you agree with on a values level, but will alter the way you think about things by questioning the frame through which you analyze things. His readings of "On Tyranny" is probably a good place to start (this is lesson 10: believe in truth): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0

Mezzie 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Major props. I suspect I disagree with you politically on many subjects, but I'm pretty sure I could sit down and have a reasonable conversation with you. We would agree on some things, and disagree on more, but we'd hopefully be able to understand even when we disagreed.
  - Mezzie 3y ago
    I'm a weirdo: I like understanding people I disagree with. Probably because of my upbringing - political and ideological agreement was never necessary for care how I was raised. (I remember pretty vividly when we had a mock presidential election in 3rd grade and my parents each pitched different candidates to me lol). I find that usually there's a first principle or a blatantly subjective and unresolvable disagreement that's behind most political disagreements. For example, my father is way more pessimistic about human nature than I am and that shows up in a lot of his political views that I disagree with because he's starting from different first principles than I am. There's not an objective answer to 'are humans innately good or bad?' that I can point to in order to sway him. Where I've been successful in swaying others, it's been through understanding how their principles and values/value rankings differ from mine and pitching my solutions/beliefs in a way that works with others' principles rather than insults them. Besides that, it also helps make my own belief system more robust. If you know something that indicates that what I believe is false, I want to know. I want to grow as a person and refine my understanding of the world until my last breath, not stop at 18 because 'we've figured it out!' Which is more and more driving me out of spaces I used to enjoy: There's a pervasive pressure to continue acting and speaking in an adolescent fashion. A culture that tries to keep me from growing is not healthy, no matter what its ideologies are. I just like learning things and genuinely like talking to a bunch of different people. The more different from me, the better. I would love to talk to a member of the Taliban, for example. I'm not going to agree with anything, but damn that would be a fascinating conversation to have.